The old adage, hind sight is always 20/20 eh? While I agree this was simply more of a good play by McCourty but I dont recall Schaub having the velocity needed to get the better of that situation, imo... when Foster is that wide open and secondary comits deep... you almost always give it to your playmaker.

I mentioned this back then after the loss.

It looks like Schaub was counting on McCourty to keep an eye on Foster for a fraction longer.
There was nobody on Foster.
Not to mention that AJ was also on the other side.
All of the guys up front came in on the 5-man blitz.

It's just too bad that Schaub looked right first.
If he had looked left first (toward AJ), McCourty most definitely would have been late.

And let's just add this. Being conservative is not a bad thing so why folks are defensive over it I have no clue. It's about choosing when to be conservative and when not to be that is the question for this offense.

Just like the other day I saw posts 'Folks want us to fling it around like the Saints!' No, many don't. What they want is for this team to know that there are times they need to be capable of executing something more than the 'conservative' play. The fact that many of us groan on a 3rd and 8+ speaks volumes about this. Why are we throwing so many passes short of the first down marker? It would be more understandable if we had more playmakers getting the ball for YAC but we don't have that. Or at least they aren't playing as much except for Dre and Foster.

Why are we almost constantly checking down in the redzone to settle for fieldgoals. Things of this nature. It's why I said in one post I would want the offense more flexible. Not about passing it 30-40 times a game. Just to where we have playmakers and can actual have a 3rd and 10 and say 'Okay, let's go get this damn thing. No problem.' By all means be conservative. Run it down the throats. Play ballhawking defense. But when it's time to pass, be capable of actually doing it for more than five yards.

Ive noticed a goal of the Texans has been to throw to someone short of the distance marker and then rely on them to make people miss.

In the past, Foster and AJ were able to get great YAC even in short yardage situations. This year, they both seem to be going down more quickly. I don't think has to do with them so much as defenses are now giving up the catch and focusing on making the quick tackle. Kubiak has to account for the fact that his strategy isn't working and adopt something new.

Kubiak plays a numbers game. Its the same reason we almost always see a draw on 3rd and long. 3 points in the red zone, to him, is better than going for 7. The reason is because going for 7 carries with it the chance that we turn the ball over. A turnover is not only zero points, but frequently turns into 7 for the other team. So he's viewing "3 is > -7." Like the writer said, its going to work against the Bengals, but not against the Patriots. We need to score points

Most likely because more goes into the 'conservative' gameplan than how many passes were thrown. The Patriots threw 14 passes that were 10+ yards. We threw 8. And since they were up big and early you would think that would be switched around.

In any case, not even sure why you guys are responding to the article talking about the previous Patriots game. They questioned Kubiak about being so conservative in the game against the Bengals and article author is talking about how being conservative in the redzone is playing into the hands of the defense.

So how exactly is he wrong? In the redzone two things are on the defenses mind. Get the ball back or force a field goal. That was the authors point. Checking down in the redzone is pointless is what he's saying. It is being overly conservative and doing exactly what the defense wants. So his point is you have to be a bit more aggressive to be the likes of the Patriots. Now of course there are times to do so but he is talking about how CONSISTENTLY the Texans did it.

Plus, again reporters were right. We were conservative against the Bengals and it did seem he was trying to protect Schaub. We threw a whopping THREE passes over 10 yards. And of course zero over 20 yards.

I'm gonna dig deeper into the Pats and the Bengals games later.

Right now I just finished tallying the pass attempts inside the redzone/endzone Schaub vs the rest of the NFL in the whole regular season.

Foster scored 15 rushing TDs this year, only 1 off from his personal record

No doubt. The O-line has done a great job near goal line this year. Even if the running game is not going as planned, we always seem to still punch it in when we get it close. Against NE, the interior O-line had great immediate push in the Foster TD.

I think you're right...that said, why in the world would we give that much on an extension to a QB with those issues?

Because Kubiak has absolute & complete confidence in Matt Schaub's ability as a quarterback. Just because he has had a string of bad games. & he hasn't played particularly well all season long doesn't make Matt a "bad" QB.

We've been debating his borderline elite status for at least 3 years here on this board, so he must have been doing something well. These screen shots & commentators coming out showing you that Schaub has had receivers open down field but chose to check it down should be evidence that Kubiak has faith in him, but Schaub is the one lacking confidence.

Kubiak isn't calling for Matt to check it down. The radio in his helmet goes silent a few seconds before the snap. Matt is making those decisions on his own.

Plus, again reporters were right. We were conservative against the Bengals and it did seem he was trying to protect Schaub. We threw a whopping THREE passes over 10 yards. And of course zero over 20 yards.

You're feeding into the nonsense. Kubiak calls the plays, he doesn't tell Matt where to throw it. Matt has options. Matt chooses not to throw the ball over 10 yards.

Unless you have evidence that we had no receivers run past 10 yards down the field more than 3 times, this has nothing to do with Kubiak.

Why are we almost constantly checking down in the redzone to settle for fieldgoals. Things of this nature. It's why I said in one post I would want the offense more flexible. Not about passing it 30-40 times a game. Just to where we have playmakers and can actual have a 3rd and 10 and say 'Okay, let's go get this damn thing. No problem.' By all means be conservative. Run it down the throats. Play ballhawking defense. But when it's time to pass, be capable of actually doing it for more than five yards.

The first play in the Patriots game was an Arian Foster run for 12 yards. They flagged us for the illegal formation, negating the run & putting us in 1 & 15

We handed the ball off to Arian & he picked up 15 yards & the first down.

On our second drive, we got to 3rd & 12. Schaub in the gun, he completed a pass to LeStar Jean for 24 yards, no YAC.

That's just one example, there were many in the Bengals game.

I'm having difficulty understanding what is being meant by being "conservative" because he's been calling exactly the game you are describing.

Now, the Bengals' game. If we get into the redzone & can't score a TD in 3 downs, the right call is to kick the field goal. We were dominating that game on both sides of the ball. They had a total of 39 yards at the half & -15 yards passing.

If we were playing the Patriots we'd have considered ourselves lucky, but take the chance to go for it on 4th & 3 from their 4 yard line. The first field goal, 4th & 2 from their 30.... not a smart move to go for it there.

I know everyone thinks they are smarter than Gary Kubiak & he doesn't understand that we can't beat New England with field goals, but we weren't playing New England & we were in complete control of that game.

Even at the end, had they scored a TD with 4 minutes left, we would have marched down the field & kicked a field goal to win it. We took knees with almost 2 minutes left in the game.

When Kubiak talks about playing smart football with the checkdowns, I think he's referring to the numerous times in the first game at Gillette where the offensive scheme generally worked but Schaub threw the ball elsewhere and tried to make more difficult throws rather than taking what the Pats left wide open.

The issue isn't the aggressiveness of the playcalling, it's smart execution by the quarterback. Too often in that curbstomping the Patriots put on us on MNF, Schaub missed a totally undefended Arian Foster, and it wasn't just that interception in the end zone. Foster leaked out into the flat many times in the first half in situations where the Pats tried to blitz or entice forced throws into their zone coverage, and Schaub failed to make the smart checkdown to Foster when he usually had ten yards of open field all around him. Granted, those plays won't usually go for scores or big plays, but they're big enough to keep moving the chains and resetting the down markers. The Patriots want to keep everything in front of their defense for the most part, but they leave a lot of open field to exploit in the expectation that they can bait the opposing quarterback into making a mistake.

If Schaub plays clean and uses Foster to catch a lot of passes to take pressure off him, the Texans can keep Brady on the sideline and the game score close.

After listening to Schaub on the radio the other day it's obvious he is being overly cautious. He was asked about the red zone offense, in particular one possession in the Cinci game (can't remember the specifics but basically) where it was 3rd and goal from the 9 (?) , and he threw a check down that was stopped short.

His response blew my mind. I cant remember his exact words but he basically said in that situation it was better to throw the ball to the check down and let him try and get to the end zone that way if he failed they could at least get a field goal.

I wish someone would post a link to that podcast. I tried but can't find it. It was really disappointing to hear him act as if he didn't want to take any chances. Like he wanted to rely on the other guys to get it done.

I'll say this, that mentality isn't going to get it done in NE.

__________________
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." Albert Einstein

After listening to Schaub on the radio the other day it's obvious he is being overly cautious. He was asked about the red zone offense, in particular one possession in the Cinci game (can't remember the specifics but basically) where it was 3rd and goal from the 9 (?) , and he threw a check down that was stopped short.

His response blew my mind. I cant remember his exact words but he basically said in that situation it was better to throw the ball to the check down and let him try and get to the end zone that way if he failed they could at least get a field goal.

I wish someone would post a link to that podcast.

I googled "Houston Texans Podcasts" Here's the page for most of them. The statement you're talking about is the last Matt Schaub show.

I felt the exact same as you after listening myself.

His, "That was the best anyone could do" attitude was what really ticked me off. I'd have much rather have heard something that made me believe he knows there are situations when you have to create, instead of just taking what the defense gives you & that he's the guy that needs to be doing the creating, instead of Andre or Foster.

If you guys are complaining about that one specific play, you are overreacting. Schaub is right. I have not heard the interview so I can't speak to how he answered the question, but I've watched that 3rd and 9 play a few times and there was NOBODY open except Walter in the middle of the field, just a couple yards shy of the first down, and Foster leaking out in the flat after chipping a defender. Cincinnati did a great job of playing tight, disciplined coverage. I initially was upset that Schaub didn't try and get the ball to Andre but the camera shot from behind the LOS showed why: he was tightly covered and a forced throw in the corner of the end zone to AJ risked a 100yd pick 6.

I googled "Houston Texans Podcasts" Here's the page for most of them. The statement you're talking about is the last Matt Schaub show.

I felt the exact same as you after listening myself.

His, "That was the best anyone could do" attitude was what really ticked me off. I'd have much rather have heard something that made me believe he knows there are situations when you have to create, instead of just taking what the defense gives you & that he's the guy that needs to be doing the creating, instead of Andre or Foster.

I think the way he said it can easily be miscontrued by listeners.

Just be patient and wait for my posts about Schaub in the red zone vs the rest of the NFL.

It looks like Schaub was counting on McCourty to keep an eye on Foster for a fraction longer.
There was nobody on Foster.
Not to mention that AJ was also on the other side.
All of the guys up front came in on the 5-man blitz.

It's just too bad that Schaub looked right first.
If he had looked left first (toward AJ), McCourty most definitely would have been late.

It's just too bad, huh? Damn the bad luck! No skill at the QB position could have possibly resulted in a different outcome.

That IS too bad.

__________________Hey O'Brien: "How do you tell a guy who is used to catching 80 balls a year that he was going to catch 40?"... You jackass.

Where's Schaub supposed to go but the middle of the field to Walter? Atkins brought the heavy pressure, forcing Schaub to step up in the pocket and get rid of the ball. I think he was looking to get the ball to either AJ in the end zone or OD at the marker on the same sideline but Atkins blew that play up, which didn't allow enough time for those routes to develop. OD ran his route inside, then planted his foot to go back to the sideline but didn't have enough time to separate from the LB coverage.

I don't mind the dinking and dunking if we're doing it on first down to get ahead of the chains. It just seems like we aren't having a ton of success on first down running the ball, and thats what is causing most of our problems down there. The aggressiveness I'd like to see is changing up our first down calls.